Development19 that's there?20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Along the21 river, yeah.22
Penn's24 Landing was a government development; it25 89 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 was not private.2 What private development other3 than the DePaul Group building the4 Dockside has occurred?5
Well, Councilman6 DiCicco, I hesitate to engage in dialogue7 with you on this; this is your district.8 But I will tell you -- I'll talk about9 the projects that we were involved in.10
Are you11 going to complete your testimony? And12 then this way, we'll get back to --13
Okay. You will22 see in the Penn Praxis materials that23 there are many good ideas for urban24 design taken from places all over the25 90 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 country, and some of them may be very2 relevant here and some of them not.3 But when you look at the basic4 assumptions of the Penn Praxis5 materials -- and I invite everyone to6 look at them -- there's some -- kind of,7 I would say, impractical -- some might8 say "elitist"; let me say "impractical"9 ideas.10 First of all, Penn Praxis11 proposes that we remove two vehicular12 lanes from Columbus Boulevard. That's13 one of the ideas.14 The second idea is that they15 proposed the demolition of the16 independent Seaport Museum. That's17 another idea.18 The third is, their design19 is -- when you look at the materials, the20 design is to build a concrete deck over21 I-95 and put six high-rise condominiums.22 Essentially what they --23
I'm sorry,24 and I don't mean to interrupt you, but25 91 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 since Councilman DiCicco and2 Mr. Abernathy have worked much more3 closely on this than us, they --4 Councilman DiCicco would like to talk to5 you a little bit about some of the things6 you're talking about now that he doesn't7 believe is actually in the overlay, like8 the demolition of the Seaport Museum.9
But what12 I'd like to do is, in order -- and we're13 going to have a dialogue, obviously,14 about this once your testimony is15 complete, but if you can confine your16 testimony to what's actually in the17 overlay, and then we can go far afield on18 other issues when you're done.19 But I don't the record to be20 confused that somehow the overlay is21 recommending the demolition of the22 Seaport Museum.23
The25 92 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 overlay.2
And their8 testimony was that this is kind of a9 first shot at a framework of dealing with10 the overall vision. But the overlay, I11 don't believe, includes the demolition of12 the Seaport Museum.13
No, but it does14 include the civic vision, and the civic15 vision, as best we read, has these16 elements.17
But18 that's -- what we're dealing with now are19 the specifics of the overlay.20
And then22 when you're done your testimony, we can23 have this discussion.24
I'm just saying25 93 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 the civic vision is embodied in the law2 in this proposal. If you strike the3 references to the civic vision, we won't4 get to that, but I think it's based in5 part on the civic vision.6
Well, I think9 that the civic vision encompassed, among10 other things, the whole idea of this11 stopgap overlay. The civic vision had12 all these design things. 19 I think that the Dockside and20 Waterfront Square have brought new people21 to the City. 22 Dave & Buster's has been deprecated by23 some of their advocates. 3 There's a hotel on the river,4 all right? There's a Wal-Mart and Home5 Depot, which they've demonized. But I6 will tell you, on a weekend at the Home7 Depot and Wal-Mart, there are more people8 who shop there and work there than ever9 attended any one of the Penn Praxis's10 public meetings. 5 There is no basis. 19 We now have a blank on how wide the20 setback is, all right? 25 96 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 The recreational trail has not2 been plotted. 11 The setback is not defined or12 mapped. 21 And it's different from the22 North Delaware plan that Paul Lonie23 talked about. That was mapped, that was24 presented. 25 97 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 The costs have not been2 determined. Paul Lonie told me that3 $23 million of federal transportation4 money was made available for the North5 Delaware plan. 15 The landowner can either keep this open16 or devote it to the City. But if he17 devotes it or she devotes it to the City,18 the City is going to have to build that19 trail. And that's unfunded. We don't20 know how much that would cost. It's like21 a street but it's not mapped and it's not22 following the process. 13 As I think is known, this bill14 has not been reviewed by the Zoning Code15 Commission. So essentially, what this16 creates is a an area of -- I don't know17 if members of the committee saw the story18 today about the Schuylkill trail, which19 is on the front page of the local20 section, which is terrific. And the21 Schuylkill is a great resource; it's our22 scenic river. The Delaware is wonderful;23 it's not a scenic river. But the24 Schuylkill is a wonderful resource. 2 And I will just share with you3 an e-mail I got from one of our members4 of the Development Workshop, who has5 actually developed at the river. His6 company actually brought jobs and tax7 ratables and services to the river. And8 he wrote to me, and he said -- refer to9 the Schuylkill trail article, which is10 funded, which does cost money. And he11 says:12 If you want to create a public13 way along a riverfront, you follow the14 successful examples of the past and15 present. ), and charge them with19 responsibility to plan, budget, instruct,20 raise monies, and negotiate with private21 landowners to achieve an acceptable22 outcome. 6 All in all, there's a way to do7 this, a right way to do it. 15
Yes. Craig16 Schelter, Executive Director of the17 Development Workshop. Just a couple of18 points.19 I think what I want to do is,20 specifically using this article that was21 in the paper this morning, to contrast22 what's been recommended versus what, in23 fact, can be achieved. And I speak,24 having been involved on the Schuylkill25 101 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 trail back seven years ago, when I was at2 PIDC, and the idea of moving the trail3 further south first began to be4 implemented.5 What's being asked here is to6 create a setback the width of Broad7 Street over the entire length of this8 seven miles of waterfront. And when you9 go into the details of this article --10 and since Joe Cernik made the comments,11 I'll assume they're factually correct --12 they talk about a portion of the13 riverfront about 2,000 feet -- it's a14 little less than half a mile -- where15 they're actually going to have to build a16 15- to 17-foot river walk in the bed of17 the river because of the conditions that18 are there and that they couldn't reach an19 agreement with the landowner.20 Another area where they're21 talking about $3 million, where the22 Marshall Labs are, which was a project23 that the City engaged in to try and keep24 Marshall Labs in the City, agreed to take25 102 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 on some of the remediation of property2 there. Again, this has been a long-term3 proposition.4 So the importance of coming up5 with an estimate, not even detailed cost,6 but an estimate of the cost is critical,7 I would think, for this council to8 consider, given the current budget9 situation.10 In a comparable situation in11 New York, on the East River plan, where12 they were doing the same thing for two13 miles of improvements, it was14 $150 million.15 Assuming that you had a -- that16 developers knew what they could get17 approval on in a site, and the real18 estate cycle turns around, they could19 begin responding to that.20 But right now, as the bill is21 drafted, there is 180 days where no one22 knows what criteria the Planning23 Commission will come up with or what24 standards. After that, if there is a25 103 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 specific proposal, there's 75 days which2 a developer must wait.3 So in the meantime, the4 question is: What kind of message do you5 send out to the investment world, to6 people who would come and potentially7 make decisions in Philadelphia? And I8 think that's something else that's9 important to be considered beyond the10 urban design aspects of the vision plan.11
Thank you12 very much for your testimony.13 I just have a couple questions14 so I can frame who it is you represent15 and their situations. How many private16 property owners are involved in your17 group?18
I would say 20,19 with about at least a half dozen who have20 properties at the river.21
Well, let22 me further refine it. How many property23 owners are on the river side where this24 trail or this overlay is proposed will25 104 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 affect?2
Of that6 half dozen, if you know, the average7 length of time that those owners have8 owned the property, on average.9
So on12 average, they've owned the parcels for 1213 years.14
Some of16 them are developed and some of them are17 not, correct?18
Of the 1220 -- I'm sorry. Of the property owners21 that own the properties, and the average22 is 12 years' ownership, how many are23 actually developed?24
Have developed?25 105 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 At the river?2
Yeah. I3 mean, I'm sure Dave & Buster's owners,4 they've developed. I mean, how many5 private property owners have developed --6
And the9 other parcels that are undeveloped,10 they've been owned on an average of 1211 years?12
There are some16 people who have owned them for 20 years.17
And some who19 bought them in the early to mid-year20 2000.21
Was that22 anything to do with gaming speculation or23 --24
Absolutely not.25 106 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921
Okay.2 (Indiscernible; parties talking3 over each other.)4
This was when5 the market for residential development6 blossomed in the City of Philadelphia.7
One of the8 many issues relevant to -- and this has9 got nothing to do with what we're talking10 about today or about anything you're --11 the government's done here -- is that the12 specter of gaming has always delayed,13 because of option after option after14 option, that was purchased by casino15 companies, has really retarded the16 development along the waterfront in many17 large parcels.18 My question is more kind of19 generic. If a lot of these properties20 have been owned for a long period of time21 and they've not been developed, would not22 something different or a different23 approach, despite all of the legal24 concerns and monetary issues, just25 107 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 overall approach, wouldn't something2 different perhaps spur development that's3 not happened in 12 to 20 years?4
The development5 is driven by the cost of money and the6 demand for use.7
But between12 12 and 20 years, there's been no driving13 of anything.14
No, I'm17 saying the ones that have not been18 developed, the ones that are owned19 between 12 and 20 years, who have not20 developed, at some point in time, does21 that ability to sit on that property and22 not develop it go on forever? Is that23 something that's in the public interest,24 that for the next 10, 12, 20 years, I25 108 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 just don't have a project I really like2 and the money's not been right, and I3 just think don't think I want to -- I4 mean, I'm going to sit and keep it fallow5 forever.6
Well, you might7 own a house that you don't sell, that you8 own. I mean, this is fundamental, the9 right to own property.10
But do you11 believe that the location of the property12 has a public benefit or detriment13 overall? It's not a house on Mifflin14 Street, where, if I can't sell it, the15 other properties around me on Mifflin16 Street are not going to necessarily17 suffer.18 The issue is, if you're sitting19 on 40 -- 20 acres, 30 acres, 40 acres of20 land for 12 to 20 years that's not been21 developed, is that in the best public22 interest, even though you have private23 property rights? It is -- it does have24 an effect on the overall development and25 109 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 progress of a city.2
People who own3 land, okay, because of the dynamics of4 the world, want to develop it, and if5 there were a market -- a stronger market6 in Philadelphia, and if there were more7 transparency and predictability,8 more-this land would all be developed.9 And I will tell you, let's not10 pit the good ideas that are in the11 Planning Commission's mind against the12 developers because many of these13 developers --14 For example, let me talk about15 Trump Tower, which became very16 controversial, which wasn't built because17 of the market. And in that Trump Tower,18 there was negotiations with the19 community. It was a green building, it20 was going to bring people to the City,21 there was waterfront access, there was a22 tot lot at the end of it, there were four23 spaces for Car Share. That developer24 wanted to do a development that was a25 110 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 terrific development. And it was because2 of the delay in the process, the market3 shifted, and we don't have that4 development. That developer wanted to go5 ahead.6
And I agree7 with you and I'm going to go to8 Councilman DiCicco in a second.9 But I agree with you: The10 market has changed everything.11
Now, prior13 to the market changing so drastically,14 there wasn't any movement then, either.15
And my only17 point is, while I recognize the18 importance of landownership and private19 ownership, when that land is in a20 location that can detrimentally affect21 the development of the City, it's in a22 different category for me.23
The land isn't24 detrimentally affecting anything.25 111 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921
Yes, because it4 can't be developed.5 Some of these people, by the6 way -- and I don't want to say that7 there's a lot of land that's been fallow.8 This Pier and is developed for9 condominiums, okay?10
Pier 25, they12 want to develop, some of the same people,13 okay? Dockside has one development, and14 they would like to develop another.15 There are other piers they would like to16 develop.17 These people are looking to18 develop, and they're looking to the19 develop in sensitive, sustainable ways.20
Okay.21 Councilman DiCicco.22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.23 You mentioned transparency and24 predictability as one of the reasons why25 112 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 development may not have occurred; did2 you not say that in response to3 Councilman Kenney's question?4
Yes.5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Doesn't a6 plan, a vision, an understanding of what7 the City would like to see its waterfront8 look like remove some of that9 uncertainty?10 Because you mentioned the Trump11 Tower. And then the negotiations between12 the community in getting what they13 thought was important delayed the process14 to the point where the market changed and15 the project was not built.16 If it were done on the front17 end, if the answers to all of those18 questions and concerns of the community19 had been recognized when the project was20 first being proposed, wouldn't that --21 could not that have shortened the time22 period to get the approval, and possibly23 it would have been constructed?24
That particular25 113 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 case is a little different because there2 was a waterfront property --3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, you4 raised it; that's why I'm --5
No, no, no.6 It's a little, but let me tell what you7 should happen, all right?8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right.9
If there are10 standards that should guide it and a11 plan, when we get a plan that should12 guide development, here's how it happens13 under the Charter, all right? You have a14 plan and you have all of the good idea15 and the good minds that you can get, and16 you can get a plan, all right?17 And then the Planning18 Commission presents an ordinance to City19 Council, and all those values are put in20 an ordinance which is clear, all right?21 And where the standards are in the22 ordinance.23 And then a developer comes in.24 And a lender knows that it doesn't depend25 114 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 on the whim of the committee; it depends2 on what City Council has put in the3 ordinance. And let me give you the best4 example.5 The best ordinance we have in6 the City of Philadelphia today is the7 Center City Zoning Ordinance, which, some8 of you will remember, that was passed on9 October 31, 1991. It created all of this10 civic vision at the time, civic values11 for dense development, which gave you the12 ground rules. So that under that, you13 could -- without negotiating with the14 Zoning Board, you could go and build a15 terrific development as of right.16 Now what developments were17 built under that? Comcast Tower, with18 all kinds of public benefits. The Cira19 Center. To a certain extent, the20 Residence at the Ritz, although it did21 need a variance for a couple of more22 floors. That's the way it should go.23 But when you send this for24 subjective review, not based upon25 115 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 Council's rules, but the Planning2 Commission's subjective review -- and3 I've been on the Historic Commission;4 I'll tell what you subjective review is.5 It's not fun for anybody. But if Council6 sets the rules, and it's clear, we can7 bring development and investment and8 people in the City who are willing to9 risk their money.10 The biggest problem the11 Development Workshop has with this12 ordinance is that it depends on the13 subjective review of the Planning14 Commission. Put aside that there's no15 authority under the City Charter. It is16 so confusing, people don't know the rules17 until they spend hundreds of thousands of18 dollars on design plans so that the19 Planning Commission can make the20 decision.21 The Planning Commission is not22 equipped to make that decision, it's not23 authorized under the Charter, and that24 sends fear into the hearts of the25 116 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 development community. We need to be2 welcoming to capital and to development3 in the City of Philadelphia. That's one4 of the major problems with this bill.5
Can I expand a6 little bit on what Michael said?7 I think one of the questions --8 or answers to your question, Councilman9 DiCicco, deals with the notion that if10 the plan were done now, I don't think the11 three of us would be sitting here,12 because we'd have some sense of13 standards.14 You questioned whether or not15 having a vision was a good thing to have.16 Well, having a vision may be a fine thing17 from an urban design point of view, but a18 plan is something that would look at:19 How do you fund it?20 Does the City have the capacity21 to do it?22 If the City was going to take23 property and then they were going to24 create a walkway trail, when would they25 117 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 do it?2 All those questions would deal3 the way we used to deal in urban renewal,4 where you knew you either had city money5 or federal money, state money for site6 improvements, things like that.7 We don't know any of that8 today. So as such, as you and Councilman9 Kenney went through on the Penn's Landing10 project was a set of controls. We stated11 what we wanted, and we also knew that we12 were going to come up short, and we had13 to come up with major public subsidies in14 order to make the vision work.15 And I don't think we have any16 sense today of what it would take except17 to know, by example, looking at other18 cities -- New York, Boston, Providence --19 where they've done this, the kinds of20 costs that are involved. So we just21 think they got the cart before the horse.22 And if you were to take the 1523 months that Alan Greenberger mentioned to24 do the plan and then let that then be the25 118 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 basis, I think you have both a design2 vision and a sense of reality in terms of3 how you would actually make it happen.4 When I came to Philadelphia in5 1968 to work for the City Planning6 Commission, the first assignment I was7 given was to figure out the funding in8 the Capital Budget for Schuylkill River9 Park. It took over 35 years to get all10 of the pieces together, Councilwoman11 Verna remembers, to get that piece done.12 And all we're saying is,13 let's -- we have to look at these14 developments in terms of the strength of15 the market as they come on and what a16 developer can do at a given point in17 time.18 The project of Waterfront19 Square is one which is a good example.20 Only two of the five towers have been21 built on that --22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Three.23
Well, the third24 one, I guess, is under --25 119 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Three.2
Three towers are3 done. There are still two more. And at4 that point, there will be sufficient5 magnitude of residents there to build the6 retail along Penn Street.7 Now, if you were to go with8 a -- with the way the controls are9 suggested in this ordinance, you would10 have to do the retail upfront, when11 there's not the market to do it.12 And I think these are the kinds13 of things that we've been involved with14 on various projects where that15 development reality hasn't been brought16 to bear.17 And, you know, I'd also state,18 I'm a steering committee member of the19 Design Advocacy Group, along with Jim20 Kerner, who testified, and we had big21 debates within the steering committee,22 you know, in terms of what we did and23 didn't support. And I would say while,24 conceptually we all agreed that it would25 120 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 be great to have this recreational trail2 along the river, the sense of what the3 scale of that varied dramatically because4 we know situations where it's worked5 extremely well at 12 feet, where it's6 worked at 25 feet. I personally think at7 a hundred feet, at the width of Broad8 Street, is extremely excessive.9 So that this debate has been10 going on. And yet, when you codify this11 as law, the notion that this is a12 temporary agreement, if the Planning13 Commission finds that they can't come up14 with a plan in 18 months, if they find15 that the sources of funding aren't there,16 this stays as the effect of law in an17 ongoing manner.18 So this could go a year-and-19 a-half, it could go five years, it could20 go seven years if the economy doesn't21 turn around. And in the meantime, when22 we're trying to bring investment capital23 in from outside the City, how do you do24 that? because we can't proffer to outside25 121 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 investment that there's a clear way you2 can go.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'll try4 to remember some of the things I wanted5 to ask you based on your statement.6 But at the tail-end, if the7 economy doesn't turn around, would you8 agree that there's not going to be any9 investment anyway, for the most part? I10 mean, Mr. Sklaroff talks about projects11 that people want to build. I have dozens12 of them in my district, but none of them13 have begun because of the state of the14 economy. The lending institutions aren't15 there.16 So are you suggesting that we17 just leave everything as is for the next18 year, two years, or whatever, and try to19 figure out what that plan would be?20 But if something does change21 between now and the time we have the22 plan, things will be built in a manner in23 which they have been built, although only24 a few of them have been built, and don't25 122 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 we miss this opportunity to create an2 environment which would make it more3 attractive? Now, I see you're shaking4 your head.5
(Indiscernible.)6 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But, you7 know, you may be right and I may be wrong8 --9
(Indiscernible.)10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- I'm11 just curious that does not the12 environment -- if the environment were to13 change and we allow the status quo to be14 in place, don't we lose that opportunity?15 Because in the time of a16 crisis, when there is no development, I17 think that's kind of like the blackboard18 is clear, let's try to figure out what19 we'd like to see going forward, because20 we have an opportunity, unfortunately,21 because the development community isn't22 developing because it's not -- they can't23 get the financing. And shouldn't this be24 the time we should be working on those25 123 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 future plans?2
Let me give you3 an example. Currently I'm involved with4 a development team that's trying to move5 a project at 2116 Chestnut Street. It's6 an outside developer from Chicago,7 probably one of a handful of developers8 that you'd want to bring into this city9 at this time. They -- on this particular10 site, they do happen to have the11 financing.12 And they have been extensively13 involved with the community, with the14 City Planning Commission. They started15 out their process with the Planning16 Commission, and they're going to have to17 go the Zoning Board. And these things18 are all happening in a methodical kind of19 way.20 I think the thing that's21 different now is, when Mayor Nutter came22 in, he said all these things are going to23 start with the Planning Commission. So24 there's been a planning input. You're25 124 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 staying with the process of going to the2 Zoning Board, where the Zoning Board is3 giving serious consideration to that, and4 the process can continue.5 As opposed to, if someone were6 to come in today from outside -- New7 York, Boston, whoever -- you couldn't8 guide them through what, in fact, they9 can get approved. And if, for some10 reason, someone didn't like what they11 were proposing, you would have to wait 612 months plus 75 days before could you get13 an answer.14 Now, maybe the Planning15 Commission would speed up the process,16 but you don't know that, and it sends an17 uncertain message.18 So here's a case where a19 developer's coming in, spending a lot of20 money to move a project go forward21 because they believe they can go forward22 even in this economy. And that's the23 kind of thing that we want to be --24 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well,25 125 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 hasn't it been a problem for us with2 developers who want to come into a3 community, have a project proposed.4 Community groups -- and I'm not5 discounting their importance, 'cause6 without them, I don't think we'd have a7 city.8 But community groups engage in9 a process that ultimately slows that10 process down in 90 percent of the cases11 that I have, causing the developer12 excessive amounts of dollars because the13 project is not moving along as quickly as14 he or she would like it to.15 I'm not trying to get community16 groups out of this process. I'm trying17 to give a sense for developers coming in18 to have an idea as to what would be19 expected of them and the type of20 development that would be acceptable to21 both the communities, 'cause their part22 of this plan, this public process that23 we've gone through for a couple of years.24 Doesn't it save you time, which25 126 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 ultimately translates into saving money2 for the developer, knowing on the front3 end as opposed to the back end?4 And adjustments could always be5 made. I mean, even in those areas where6 I have height restrictions in Old City,7 two developers came after we put the8 limitation, and they proposed buildings9 that were in excess of 65-foot height and10 were approved.11 So it's -- as much as we want12 it to be in stone, it's not. But I think13 it's a plan, it's a model of what we'd14 like to see it built. And I think -- and15 I could be wrong, and I said this from16 Day One, as early as that 8 o'clock17 meeting at Penn's Landing three years18 ago, when I called all the developers and19 all you guys in, doesn't it make sense20 for people to know ahead of time what21 some of the expectations are and not to22 come up with a plan, having spent a lot23 of money, and then, boom, a community24 group says, You know? What we don't like25 127 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 the color of the bricks.2
Or this4 doesn't have what we like, too much5 glass, not enough glass. And we engage6 in that dialogue for many months.7
Absolutely. And8 there's a way to do that. And the model9 is the 1991 plan for Center City, which10 has civic values in the standards, and11 you know what's expected.12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is this13 that far away from that?14
Yes, because15 what you've done is, instead of16 putting -- instead of City Council17 controlling the rules, it goes to the18 Planning Commission to make it up as they19 go along on standards that they haven't20 promulgated on value judgments.21 And if you've ever been before22 the Art Commission, God bless them, or23 even the Historic Commission, when we get24 beyond our historic roles -- I should say25 128 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 "their," no longer "our." When you get2 into esthetics and when you get into3 scope and being harmonious and so forth,4 that's the wrong way.5 The best way is the way the6 Charter has it. Be clear. Don't put a7 of 65-foot height limitation unless you8 need it, okay?9 And I think it is really the10 domain of the City Council to set the11 rules. And when you delegate it to the12 Planning Commission, it not only violates13 the Charter, but it makes it opaque and14 difficult for outside investment.15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I just16 want to finish up.17 Based on your comments and your18 letter -- and I could be reading it19 wrong -- it almost sounds like you're20 gearing up for a lawsuit, which I would21 be disappointed in, if that's where22 you're going, and we don't know what a23 judge would do, obviously.24 But wouldn't that almost act25 129 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 like a moratorium?2
Councilman, let3 me say this: We're not gearing up for4 anything.5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay.6
We're asking7 Council and the Law Department to take a8 serious look at these issues; that's what9 we're doing. It will be to individual10 landowners what their response is.11 But it is to point out12 important issues that we hope the Law13 Department is taking seriously.14 Mr. Lombardo wants to say a15 word.16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yeah, but17 just for the record, there are a number18 of developers who have looked at this19 and, in the last 48 hours, have said that20 they agree and think that this is21 actually a good plan. So it's not one22 hundred percent opposition.23
We never said it24 was --25 130 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No, no,2 I'm not saying you are, but I want the3 record to reflect that there are4 developers who have looked at it, had5 their input, and I may ask Mr. Abernathy6 to come up and say a few words, if he'd7 like, to address some of the issues that8 have been raised, because he's done all9 of the heavy lifting on the legislation.10
So he has. But,11 again, the purpose of the letter was to12 point out issues that we sincerely13 believe, having thought it out, are five14 major defects in the law.15
Excuse me. I16 suppose you're wondering why I'm here,17 and I'll tell you very brief.18 Rich Lombardo.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You have a20 new job.21
I have a new22 job. I'm still a planner.23 And, first of all, I do want to24 say (indiscernible) I really appreciate25 131 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 the difficulty in trying to do an2 ordinance where you have so many moving3 parts and the moving parts go right up to4 the day of the hearing.5 But I just wanted to address6 the reason why I feel that this ordinance7 is not ready for prime time, and it's the8 unforeseen consequences. In paragraph9 12, all commercially zoned properties10 have to go to the Planning Commission.11 That means if, tomorrow, you12 own 25-by-90 feet, three blocks, one13 block east of Christopher Columbus14 Boulevard, you're zoned commercial, you15 can't do anything with that property16 without going to the Planning Commission17 to get a plan approved.18 And that means this whole19 waiting period of time: The six months20 for the Planning Commission to develop21 guidelines, the 75 days to review your22 plan.23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Not to24 interrupt, but that has been changed.25 132 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921
Maybe the4 --5 (Indiscernible; parties talking6 over each other.)7
Again, that's8 the moving parts I'm talking about, the9 moving parts keep on being moving parts.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, that11 happens. I mean, you know.12 (Indiscernible; parties talking13 over each other.)14
And I'm not15 criticizing. I'm just saying that's the16 problem with --17
It's always19 moving parts. And I just wanted to20 address that one little un -- what I21 think is an unforeseen consequence.22 We're all looking at the big sites along23 the riverfront and the trail and all that24 type of thing but we're forgetting about25 133 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 this area that covers something bigger2 than Center City. It covers I-95 over to3 the river, Oregon Avenue to Allegheny4 Avenue, and there could be -- and there5 seem to be unforeseen consequences the6 way it was moving. That's all I wanted7 to say.8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I just9 would like to go back to one thing I was10 just thinking about.11 Earlier, Mr. Sklaroff, you12 talked about development that has13 occurred, we talked about Dockside, we14 talked about the hotel, I think Dave &15 Buster's and Wal-Mart and Home Depot.16 I agree that many people who go17 to Home Depot and Wal-Mart added jobs to18 the community and all, but if we had to19 do it again, and Wal-Mart and Home Depot20 were not there, would you not agree that21 they would not be in a master plan? They22 are not the highest and best use for that23 location.24
Let's --25 134 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921
Don't you2 think we could have maybe placed it3 further south, down by Ikea or --4
No, absolutely5 no. And let me tell you why.6 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well,7 you're the only person that I've talked8 to who thinks that.9
Well, let me10 tell you why. It was the (indiscernible)11 site, okay? It was the only thing that12 could be put there.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But what14 happened to the master plan of 1982; was15 that a part of that plan? Would that16 have been permitted?17 Because the environment in18 1982, along the waterfront, was totally19 different, the landscape then, than what20 it is today.21 (Indiscernible; parties talking22 over each other.)23
We were24 still (indiscernible) industry there.25 135 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921
Remember, this2 is the way it happened. It was to create3 jobs, okay? To keep taxes in the City4 and to provide -- to provide convenient5 shopping.6 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: To keep7 Philadelphians from shopping in8 Washington Township, to stay in9 Philadelphia.10
Right, it was11 the same thing that we did -- and Council12 President will remember -- at the13 Quartermaster site, all right? There was14 a site, the former Quartermaster site was15 terribly polluted, it was being16 remediated, and it's a -- a Home Depot.17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Isn't that18 apples to oranges?19
It's not on20 the waterfront.21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You've got22 an industrial site sitting out close to23 some residential communities, close to24 major highways. We're talking about the25 136 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 waterfront, whose purpose is not what it2 was 20 years ago.3 And maybe at the time -- and I4 said this during the casino hearings --5 15, 20 years ago, I probably, if I was6 here, I might have thought Wal-Mart and7 Home Depot was a good idea because there8 was nothing else there. And, yes, for9 the purpose of creating jobs and keeping10 tax revenues here.11 But if I had the opportunity12 today, I would not be supportive of a13 Wal-mart or a Home Depot at that14 location.15
That may be so.16 But remember, 1993, this came to City17 Council. I was at the hearing.18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I wasn't19 here yet.20
But I -- we came23 to City Council, and it was controversial24 because Wendell Young III was not happy25 137 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 with this, all right?2 It came to Council and Council3 did the right thing. You rezoned it to4 commercial, which was certainly5 consistent with the sense at the time.6 It's hypothetical whether you7 would do it today, but it does -- real8 people shop there.9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I just10 want to -- if I may finish.11 For the record, you mentioned12 earlier that you thought that -- and13 paraphrasing some legal problems with14 this as it relates to the Charter, it may15 not be legal what we're trying to do?16
I sent a letter17 with a copy to you, Councilman.18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right.19 The Law Department disagrees. They think20 it's legal. So I just want that to be21 for the record. I'm not saying you're22 right and they're wrong or vice-versa.23 But I just want that as part of the24 record that we have talked to them, and25 138 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 they believe that it has legal standing.2
Well,3 Councilman, you will be guided by the Law4 Department. I would hope that the5 Council would ask for a written analysis6 because these are important issues.7
Thank10 you.11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And Madam12 Chair, if there are any questions,13 Mr. Lombardo brought up some things that14 could be answered, would be able to be15 answered by Mr. Abernathy; he's available16 to respond to those questions.17 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:18 Mr. Lombardo, did you want Mr. Abanathy19 to --20
While he --21 I just want to say one thing before he22 comes up, 'cause I'll be done after this.23 First of all, on the issue of24 Wal-Mart, Home Depot, there was another25 139 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 element to that discussion, and that was2 the ability to swap land for industrial3 port use. It was a paper operation that4 was getting land, and it was kind of a5 land swap. In addition to saving or6 keeping the jobs and tax ratables in the7 City, there was a port industrial use8 that was a component of that whole9 discussion.10
The only13 thing I could say to you -- I mean, I've14 been in politics for more than 30 years,15 I've sat on Penn's Landing Corporation in16 one form or another for over 25, and the17 only thing I could tell you I know: With18 the exception of two or three, maybe four19 accident developments, it's very20 disappointing what's happened or not21 happened in the last quarter century, and22 I'm willing and ready to make somewhat of23 a leap of faith --24 (Applause.)25 140 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921
Willing to2 make somewhat of a leap of faith. And I3 grant it, it's a leap of faith, 'cause4 there are moving parts, and there are5 potential bad results.6 But there's also so much upside7 potential that I think we got to go in8 some direction that's going to get a9 waterfront that we're going to be proud10 of and is usable and attractive and a11 national kind of icon for development.12 And I know you have the same13 goal.14
But I can16 tell from you experience, over the last17 25 or 30 years, we haven't gotten there18 under the current system and set of19 rules.20 So I think at this point, it21 may be time to take that leap of faith22 and go in another direction.23
And if you24 believe that, I would just add one other25 141 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 thing: Plan it, plot it, and price it.2
Because it would4 be unfair to everybody, everybody5 involved, if we're going to -- if the6 plans are pie in the sky. And the heavy7 lifting is normally done by the Planning8 Commission and it hasn't been done here9 yet.10
But under11 our current rules, every iteration of12 waterfront development that I've13 experienced was pie in the sky too, from14 the Crystal Pavilion to the -- thank God15 we didn't do the Simon project. Thank16 God every day that didn't happen.17 And every other iteration18 between the Crystal Pavilion and then was19 all generated and conducted under the20 current rules, and none of that happened21 either.22 So I know there are other23 elements as to why it didn't happen, but24 we need to go, I believe, in a different25 142 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 direction because the other stuff has not2 worked.3
-- I guess the7 question is, if you were advising a8 landowner, what would you say to the fact9 that there are still blanks in this10 legislation? I mean, if someone said to11 me, Well what is my waterfront setback?12 what percentage of my land? I couldn't13 begin to tell him.14 They can't price it, they can't15 look at the soil conditions, they can't16 --17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It will be18 filled in by the end of this year.19
Thank you.20 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:21 Mr. Lombardo, did you want Mr. Abernathy22 to address your concerns?23
No. I was just24 going with the copy I got at 4:30 on25 143 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 Monday. If it was changed again, I2 wasn't aware of those changes. So I was3 testifying from the copy I was provided4 at 4:30 Monday.5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:6 Mr. Abernathy, has that been changed7 since Friday?8
We received it9 Monday, June 1, at 5:20 p.m.10 (Mr. Abernathy confers with11 panel members off the record.)12
Well, I think13 there ought to be -- it ought to be14 stated on the record. I think this may15 be an important point.16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Brian?17
Sure. All18 right.19 From my understanding of the20 question, it was that -- and this was an21 issue in previous drafts, is that because22 of the requirement for the Planning23 Commission to develop regulations for24 plan of development, that prior to the25 144 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 development of those regulations, you2 have an ad hoc moratorium for development3 along the waterfront.4 We adjusted that by clearly5 stating -- by actually changing one word,6 which was prior to implementing the7 provisions of this section, which related8 to the entire waterfront overlay, to this9 Subsection 12, by relating it to the10 specific paragraph, no longer will a POD11 be needed -- a POD will not be required12 until those regulations are adopted.13 Therefore, the moratorium issue has been14 resolved.15 Did I understand the concern16 correctly, Rich?17
It's right here24 (indicating).25 145 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921
So2 Mr. Abernathy, what you're saying is that3 understanding is that now we don't have a4 six-month moratorium, that during the5 six-month period, a landowner will be6 able to proceed under the existing7 zoning, which is under the 1982 plan; is8 that correct?9
That's not10 wholly accurate.11 The property owner will not be12 required to submit a plan of development.13 However, they will be required to adhere14 to the -- the property owner will not be15 required to submit a plan of development16 in order to pull zoning permits.17 However, they will be required to adhere18 to the other provisions of the bill; for19 example, a waterfront setback.20
And also, they21 would have to agree to the trail, without22 design guidelines, under a POD?23
They have an24 opportunity to dedicate the recreational25 146 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 trail to the City, or they must build the2 recreational trail and accept that3 liability to the guidelines that are4 actually contained within the legislation5 as a condition of their zoning permit.6
Well, it's worth7 thinking about, but I think the confusion8 is going to put us way back into the9 original moratorium, but -- well, we10 haven't understood it the way Brian is11 explaining it, and we'll take a look at12 it.13
Thank14 you very much. Gentlemen, thank you.15 Our next witnesses?16
Dr. James Plumb,19 Patrick Star, Larry Silver.20 (Witnesses come forward.)21
Council President22 Verna, I have been informed by others23 that Mr. Plumb is not in the room.24
Good25 147 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 afternoon. Please identify yourself for2 the record and proceed with your3 testimony.4
Good afternoon. My5 name is Patrick Starr, and I'm Senior6 Vice President of the Pennsylvania7 Environmental Council, which is a8 statewide environmental organization, and9 I lead the regional office. ,2 zoning. 4 I urge that the setback be 1005 feet, I think, recognizing that no more6 than 20 percent of a particular parcel7 should be impacted. 19 We've heard a lot about takings. There's20 a less well development concept called21 givings, which has to do with public22 investment in infrastructure raising23 property values. 4 I want to share just a couple5 of observations from the North Delaware6 greenway project that I think are very7 important here. We too had a vision. We8 developed a greenway master plan. It was9 accepted by the Planning Commission. 20 An optional zoning district was21 created, called the Waterfront22 Redevelopment Zone, prepared by staff at23 the Planning Commission and introduced by24 Councilwoman Krajewski. It was helpful25 151 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 but imperfect. It was optional. 11 They did not create connecting12 streets for public access, as this bill13 would mandate. They did not -- the plans14 did not clearly indicate public15 improvements that were promised. And the16 upshot was, developers were greatly17 enriched by the approval of entitlement18 on development sites without any real19 public development clearly ever20 resulting. 24 This zoning overlay also25 152 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 regulates use in building relationship to2 the street. I endorse that. It is3 important to rebuild Philadelphia4 neighborhoods back to the river. 18 The greenway shouldn't be19 stingy. 3 And, lastly, I would just say I4 wish that we would not be establishing5 setbacks on the Delaware River by6 Councilmatic District. 12
Thank13 you very much.14 Please identify yourself for15 the record.16
Thank you, Your17 Honor. My name is Larry Silver. Good18 afternoon. 6 Just so you know, I commute to7 work by bike most days, year round,8 almost 20 miles roundtrip. I try to stay9 off roads where possible such as on the10 Schuylkill (indiscernible) trail. 14 When I'm riding on the streets15 of Philadelphia, I do not have the word16 "lawyer" stitched on the back of my17 spandex -- safety first. And safety18 first is my theme today. I want to talk19 about the bill and make sure it gets20 passed. 21 It seems apparent that the bill22 may be challenged in court following23 passage. 16 I think it's a mistake for the17 bill to give the City Planning Commission18 the power to grant such exceptions. 21 My concern here is that the22 contemplated exception is the equivalent23 of a zoning variance. 3 Philadelphia's Home Rule4 Charter provides that the Zoning Board of5 Adjustment, the ZBA, shall herein decide6 appeals and zoning matters and authorizes7 variances if not contrary to the public8 interest. 18 So I ask you to protect the19 bill by making it consistent with the20 Home Rule Charter and provide that the21 exceptions to the setback go to the ZBA22 for consideration. 24 And, again, I would be25 157 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 interested in hearing what the Law2 Department says about that issue. 7 I see no problem with the bill8 in transferring that review authority to9 the ZBA. 11 My second concern is a concern12 raised by Mr. Sklaroff in Section 12 of13 the bill. 21 Under the bill, the City22 Planning Commission's decision is final23 and appealable directly to Common Pleas24 Court. Now, this is a process that's25 158 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 been used in the City at (indiscernible)2 Square and at the American Commerce3 Center. 6 There is a concern about7 whether that power can be delegated to8 the Planning Commission. 11 I think there's an easy fix for12 that one, too. My suggestion is that the13 Planning Commission still consider and14 hold hearings on proposed plans of15 development (indiscernible) after the16 regulations are in place, but the17 Commission should be tasked with making a18 recommendation rather than a final19 decision, and the recommendation would go20 to City Council for ultimate approval or21 disapproval. 23 Again, my intent here is to be24 supportive of the bill but to try to25 159 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 insulate it from legal challenge. 4 Finally, the last comment I5 have addresses the regulated access6 provision of the bill. This is not a fix7 in terms of legal challenge, but I think8 it's an improvement. 9 Section 8 provides that two or10 more adjacent property owners may share11 access via an easement agreement between12 the parties. My concern here is that13 this language is too open-ended and14 subject to abuse. It is possible, if15 this is awarded, for example, for ten16 adjacent property owners to agree that17 one access route on one of the properties18 will be provided to satisfy the19 requirement. 21 The civic vision contemplates a22 model access point to the recreational23 trail on the river. Again, the fix here24 is easy. 10
Good afternoon. My13 name is Matt Rubin. 3 090170 with the proposed amendments that4 Councilman DiCicco and the Planning5 Commission have been offering. 8 I want to first address9 something that I feel compelled to10 clarify. The community I represent,11 which is a member of CDAG, is perhaps the12 fastest-growing community in13 Philadelphia. 15 We have 150 businesses. Those16 business owners, many of them live in the17 neighborhood, and every business is also18 a member of our association. 23 I am available most any day at24 this time of the year to take25 162 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 Mr. "8 Secondly, I would like to say9 that this bill is important to be passed10 out and recommended out of committee now11 for two related reasons. One is, it12 provides safeguards and clear rules of13 the road for future development, allowing14 time for a proper master plan to be15 created. 24 So by setting down an overlay now, we25 163 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 help protect the riverfront from a for2 rush permits while we are developing the3 master plan. 7 The NLNA also advocates in the8 strongest terms that the waterfront9 setback in the bill be set with a formula10 of 100 feet or no more than 20 percent of11 the lot. 2 I am aware of no concrete3 evidence that has been offered anywhere4 that shows why another different formula5 would be superior to this one. 16 I would just briefly say that17 you've heard an objection that this bill18 would institute spot-zoning. 6 So I think it's important to7 note that communities are giving up a lot8 of their prerogative and are doing so9 willingly, precisely because this marks10 an end to spot-zoning. 19 You also heard objections that20 this bill could affect takings of private21 property, and I think that it's important22 to note that many of the underlying23 zoning categories have open-space24 requirements, and this setback would25 166 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 contribute to that. 8
Thank9 you.10 Are there any questions or11 comments from members of the committee?12 (No questions or comments.)13
Maya Van Rossum,19 Brian Glass, Rachael Vassar.20 (Witnesses come forward.)21
Good22 afternoon, welcome. Please identify23 yourself for the record.24
25 168 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 My name is Maya Van Rossum. 14 And I would like to thank Councilman15 DiCicco, of course, for leading the16 charge to bring this forth. 18 As you can imagine, based on my19 title, the reason that I'm here is20 because the Delaware River needs 100-foot21 vegetative buffers in the City of22 Philadelphia. 12 There are many reaches of the13 Delaware River that have already been14 damaged by development that, already15 suffer from hardened banks. 8 With regards to some of the9 specifics, to deliver all of the benefits10 that a buffer can provide, it can't11 simply be a setback from the water; it12 has to be a vegetative buffer. 6 And I think that there's been a7 lot of effort to do that here, and8 successfully so. 11 So I am urging you to put back12 into the text -- the version I have sort13 of took out the number. I am urging you14 to put pack a 100-foot minimum vegetative15 buffer requirement in Bill No. 090170,16 and I would like to ask that you increase17 the setback in Bill No. 19 There are a couple of specifics20 in the language that I wanted to raise21 that are important. In provision22 number -- well, it's numbered as 13 in my23 version, but I think it's supposed to be24 number 12. It talks about providing25 172 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 automatic approval if the Commission2 fails to act within 60 days. 7 I think if we're going to have8 a presumption of a decision because of9 failure to act, the presumption has to be10 for a denial. And if you're going to11 have a presumption for approval, then12 you've got to give a longer timeframe13 than merely 60 days. And you also have14 to put in place a mechanism that the15 public can take advantage of to make sure16 there is not that lapse of time without17 any action. 25 174 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 I would like to say -- I do2 feel that I have to speak just a moment3 to some of the assertions that were made4 before. 10 And I think that not only are11 these unsubstantiated claims, but when we12 look at experiences in other communities,13 we find that they are altogether not14 accurate and not truthful. 8 One of the things I do as the9 river keeper is, I do tour the10 riverfront, I do tour the river waters,11 looking for pollution, looking for12 threats to the Delaware River. And as I13 do these tours along the Philadelphia14 waterfront, one of the most wonderful15 things I see -- and in some ways, the sad16 thing that I see -- is so many people,17 young and old, battling to get to the18 natural part of the waterfront. 22 They will climb over anything,23 they will climb under anything to get to24 those natural areas in order to fish, in25 176 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 order to swim, in order to just relax in2 the beautiful, lush green that is a3 naturally vegetated river bank. 7 And I think that it is unfair8 to suggest that these hardened banks that9 we have and these cement pathways we have10 way above the water that makes darn sure11 that you can't touch the water and makes12 it really difficult for particularly a13 young child to put a fishing rod in the14 water. 6 So I thank you for putting7 forth this bill. 11
18 Penn future works to create a19 just future, where nature, communities,20 and the economy can thrive. 11 Next Great City has identified12 ten affordable actions that the City must13 undertake to revitalize Philadelphia's14 neighborhoods. Among the ten agenda15 items is a recommendation to create16 public riverfronts. 7 The greenway that the vision8 imagines, with a hundred-foot setback9 along the bank of the river, will create10 a network of green public spaces that11 will connect neighborhoods and bring12 residents and tourists alike to the13 riverfront. It will be an esthetic,14 cultural, and ecological resource15 contributing to the health, vibrancy, and16 economic development of our city. 19 We should aim for consistency20 and apply the same standards to all of21 our riverfronts. 3 A full expression of the civic vision4 will enable the Delaware Riverfront to5 finally live up to its enormous cultural,6 economic, and ecological potential. 11 The City's support for12 SugarHouse Casino development makes13 adjacent parcels more susceptible for14 change, reinforcing the need to enact15 interim zoning now. 21 I look forward to hearing your22 position on this proposal. 24
Thank25 182 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 you very much.2
Good afternoon. My6 name is Brian Glass and I'm a staff7 attorney at Penn Future. I'd like to8 focus my testimony today on the takings9 concerns that have been raised in10 connection with the zoning bill before11 you.12 Government can regulate the13 permissible uses of private property14 without compensating the owner of that15 property when the regulation advances16 legitimate state interests and does not17 deny the owner of all economically viable18 uses of his or her land.19 To determine whether a20 government regulation has denied an owner21 of all economically viable uses such that22 a taking has occurred, courts focus on23 the parcel as a whole, meaning that24 courts consider not only the geographical25 183 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 dimension -- that is, how much of the2 land is unavailable for all uses -- but3 also a temporal aspect; that is, for how4 long the property will be unavailable for5 all uses.6 The bad news: The analysis7 involves a complex of factors, often8 referred to as the Penn Central analysis,9 after the United States Supreme Court10 case in which it was first adopted.11 The good news: The United12 States Supreme Court has already found13 that a taking did not occur when14 considering an ordinance that was far15 more restrictive than the Central16 Delaware Riverfront Zoning Overlay17 District that you are considering today.18 In Tahoe, Sierra Preservation19 Council versus Tahoe Regional Planning20 Agency, the Tahoe Regional Planning21 Agency enacted two moratoria lasting for22 a total of 32 months on all development23 in the Lake Tahoe Basin to maintain the24 status quo while studying the impact of25 184 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 development on Lake Tahoe and formulating2 a comprehensive land-use plan for the3 area.4 Analyzing the case within the5 Penn Central framework, the Supreme Court6 upheld a decision by the court below that7 no categorical taking had occurred with8 respect to the enactment of the two9 moratoria.10 Given that the United States11 Supreme Court determined that a 32-month12 complete prohibition on development does13 not constitute a taking, it is indeed a14 stretch to argue that the less15 restrictive Central Delaware Riverfront16 Zoning Overlay District, a far cry from a17 complete prohibition on development, is18 vulnerable to a takings attack.19 Because the proposed zoning20 overlay appears to survive constitutional21 scrutiny and given the overwhelming22 public support for the civic vision, Penn23 Future respectfully requests that the24 Rules Committee approve the Central25 185 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 Delaware Riverfront Overlay District.2 Thank you.3
The next witness7 is Marilyn Jordan Taylor.8 (Witness comes forward.)9
Good10 afternoon. Please identify yourself for11 the record.12
Good afternoon,13 Madam President and Councilmembers. I am14 Marilyn Jordan Taylor. I am the Dean of15 the School of Design at the University of16 Pennsylvania, and I am here representing17 the Delaware River Waterfront18 Corporation. I'm a board member of that19 corporation and also the chairman of the20 planning committee.21 We are here today and we have22 submitted in writing our comments to you.23 There are just two comments that I would24 like to reinforce verbally for your25 186 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 consideration and in contribution to the2 discussion you're having here.3 First of all, the Delaware4 River Waterfront Group is strongly in5 support of this overlay. Its purpose is6 clear, and that is to protect the7 characteristics of the natural8 environment until the time when the9 master plan and zoning can be put in10 place. We endorse that both as property11 owners and as a corporation charged with12 the -- with ensuring the implementation13 of the vision for the Central Delaware14 Riverfront.15 The particular item I would16 like to comment on, as everyone else, is17 the waterfront setback. The intent of18 the working guidelines to be derived from19 the civic vision for the overlay district20 is that no new encumbrances should be21 created in the waterfront setback zone22 that would make the implementation of23 continuous waterfront access more24 difficult to accomplish than it is today.25 187 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 This continuous set back -- this is very2 important -- must be applied to all3 properties in the district, in all zoning4 districts within the overlay district,5 not just to the commercial properties.6 The intent is not to preclude7 ongoing and allowed industrial activities8 but to avoid further encumbrances to that9 future continued connection.10 Ultimately, whatever the11 dimension is, the point of measurement12 should be from the bulkhead line, with13 the Planning Commission determining from14 existing information or survey where that15 bulkhead line is physically located.16 In our opinion, the continuous17 open space need not be of continuous18 width. In fact, there are urban and less19 urban areas that may dictate different20 widths ultimately being realized. We21 assert, though, that there must be a22 minimum of approximately 50 feet in order23 to accommodate emergency access, safe24 pedestrian circulation, a separated25 188 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 bikeway, and seating and natural areas,2 as well as the ability to protect the3 river edge.4 Greater dimension may be5 required in some areas of irregular6 edges. Less dimension may be needed in7 select areas of special existing8 conditions, which should be identified,9 as the regulations direct, by the10 Planning Commission, within 180 days of11 the effective date.12 Just to summarize quickly. It13 must be continuous across all properties14 from north to south. It needs to be of a15 character that feels consistently public16 and similar. And, finally, it needs to17 have a minimum of 50 feet for function in18 addition to whatever else is required to19 meet the natural edge of the river.20 Thank you very much for the21 opportunity to testify.22
Thank23 you so much for coming in to testify.24 Our next witnesses?25 189 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921
Good5 afternoon. Please identify yourself for6 the record and proceed with your7 testimony.8
My name is Rene9 Goodwin, and I'm here representing -- as10 Pennsport representative to the Central11 Delaware Advocacy Group.12 I want to thank you, Madam13 President and members of Council for14 allowing me to speak, and I want to15 particularly thank Councilman DiCicco and16 Brian Abernathy for the laborious work17 that they have done to bring this18 legislation forward.19 I want to just also mention20 that I shop at Wal-Mart, I'm a real21 person, and I support the overlay.22 (Laughter.)23
Location,24 location, location. It's the real estate25 190 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 agent's mantra and is repeated three2 times for emphasis. It is the phrase3 that sums up the most important4 principles of successful real estate5 marketing and development. It means that6 an identical house can increase or7 decrease in value due to its location.8 It means different things to9 different people. To the first-time10 homebuyer, it may mean a good school11 system, proximity to jobs and shopping.12 To empty nesters, it may mean distance to13 cultural events and dining. And to14 developers, it may mean access to major15 highways and other means of16 transportation, and it may also mean a17 location where the developers can have18 access to a workforce and the supplies19 they need to build.20 But you may wonder, how does21 this relate to today's hearing regarding22 overlay legislation? It relates because23 although there are many items on a24 homebuyer's or developer's list to25 191 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 determine value and desirability of a2 property, one of the top items on that3 list throughout the world is proximity to4 water.5 People who buy first or second6 homes on the water know that. They know7 that they pay more. Developers know8 that. Why, some developers know it so9 well that they have even land-banked10 property along the Delaware River for11 years, knowing that its value would12 continue to increase due to the proximity13 to the river.14 In Pennsport, we all know the15 river has value, for it has given us life16 in the form of an active port, which is17 about to expand and create yet more18 family-supporting jobs.19 Harris Steinberg, Penn Praxis,20 and thousands of people who worked to21 mold the civic vision know the value of22 the riverfront land. So does the Central23 Delaware Advocacy Group and the24 residents, the taxpayers and voters of25 192 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 the waterfront wards who are situated in2 and on the edge of the seven-mile stretch3 that comprises the civic vision.4 There is nothing wrong with5 seeking profit. Seeking profit is an6 integral part of the system that keeps7 our country going, but there is also8 nothing wrong with giving to citizens9 their right, their access to the river.10 This overlay does not11 discourage development, as some would12 have you believe. On the contrary, many13 believe that development based on good,14 sound principals, the guiding principles15 of the civic vision, as included in this16 overlay legislation, will result in17 better development, more marketability,18 increased profit margins, and the true19 prize: Philadelphia and its waterfront20 will finally take its place as a21 first-class city.22 So, members of Council, I'm not23 going to ask you to support this24 legislation; rather, I'm simply going to25 193 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 thank you, for I have complete confidence2 that you will support it and support it3 now. I can't imagine you wouldn't want4 to generate increased revenue, make5 Philadelphia a world-class city, protect6 the interests of the citizens you7 represent, and leave a legacy far beyond8 your wildest dreams. Location, location,9 location.10 Thank you, thank you, thank11 you.12
Thank13 you very much.14 Please identify yourself for15 the record.16
Hi. 19 We're a member organization in the20 Central Delaware Advocacy Group. 24 Thank you for this opportunity25 194 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 to speak. 8 Councilman DiCicco and9 then-Mayor Street got the ball rolling on10 the civic vision process. 23 NABR members, like residents of24 all of the neighborhoods in Philadelphia,25 195 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 worked hard and good faith to do our part2 in this most community-inclusive planning3 project that was ever undertaken in our4 city. The result of this process, the5 civic vision for the Central Delaware, is6 both bold and reasonable. 10 The economy will not always be11 bad, and that's why now is the time to12 plan. 14 NABR advocates for a15 hundred-foot setback without an16 alternative percentage provision. If a17 landowner believes this requirement is a18 hardship, they can seek a variance at the19 Zoning Board of Adjustment. 2 Unless the percentage is 20 percent,3 which would be consistent with public4 area requirements in normal commercially-5 zoned properties, we will end up without6 a hundred-foot setback. 17 Many -- creating this amenity18 for the City will draw people to the19 river, which is what we all want. 23 Also, with respect to the24 hundred-foot setback, we continue to urge25 197 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 greater clarity on the point from which2 the distance is measured. 8 In general, we want to9 encourage a diverse waterfront with10 active uses, one that is busy both day11 and night. 13 In addition, NABR would like to14 see a requirement for regular public to15 the river at intervals of not more than16 500 feet. 23 NABR saw an opportunity in this24 bill to add gaming facilities to the list25 198 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 of prohibited uses so that we never again2 find Harrisburg dictating land uses on3 our river. You know, that's our4 recommendation. 8 As NABR has stated, we would9 like to see history preserved along the10 waterfront. 13 Our history is also the14 nation's history and the primary driver15 for our tourism. The minimum we should16 require is a Phase I survey of properties17 within the overlay district. 2 Access, diversity of uses, honoring our3 history, the ecological needs of the4 river, and the recreational needs of5 Philadelphia; in short, creating a6 riverfront that people want to visit is7 the best use of the Central Delaware8 Waterfront. 11
Thank12 you.13 Does the stenographer have a14 copy of Ms. Hunt's letter?15 STENOGRAPHER: Yes, I do.16
Alicia Footes,19 Dave Hammond, John Gallery, Tim Kerner.20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam21 Chair, if I may, I would ask these22 witnesses and the other witnesses who may23 follow, assuming they're all here, there24 are at least eight witnesses. Come25 200 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 forward, please.2 If they can summarize, it would3 be helpful. I will have a Streets and4 Services Committee hearing shortly after5 this committee, of which I have over 306 bills, so we'd like to get that in as7 well.8 And I appreciate your coming9 here and your interest in this, but if10 you can summarize, that would be helpful.11 Thank you.12 Thank you, Madam Chair.13 (Witness comes forward.)14
Thank15 you.16 Good afternoon kindly identify17 yourself for the record and proceed with18 your testimony.19
Okay. Good20 afternoon. Hello. My name is Alicia21 Footes, and I was born and raised in22 Philadelphia. I'm also 17 years old and23 I'm a senior at the (indiscernible) day24 school of the Sacred Heart, which is25 201 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 located in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania.2 I'm also a five-year3 participant of the mentoring program,4 Students (indiscernible). This program5 trains adolescents like myself to run in6 different Philadelphia races such as the7 Broad Street Run, the Philadelphia8 Distance Run, and the Philadelphia9 Marathon in November.10 As a participant of this11 program, I'm always outdoors in different12 areas around the City. As I run, I have13 noticed the developments going on in14 these areas. Students from Philly Style15 have done a wonderful job of training16 many of their students to participate in17 these activities. And with the18 developments in the City, you have19 allowed them to complete their goals20 productively.21 In my opinion, the development22 is a great addition to Philadelphia for23 two reasons.24 First is safety. The new25 202 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 projects allow young people like myself2 to feel safe when going out to do3 positive recreational activities outside4 after school. In my case, when running5 three or even fifteen miles during6 practice, I like to feel relaxed by not7 having to worry about my safety.8 Another reason is more9 opportunities for the youth in the area.10 New projects open doors for young people.11 It allows us to do more recreational12 activities around the City, without13 disrupting our fellow residents in the14 City.15 In conclusion, I do believe the16 projects are not a problem for the City.17 Instead, it is an aide to put our city18 back on the map for something positive19 and can help the young people in our city20 to stay out of trouble.21 Thank you for listening to me22 today, and I hope my opinion helps future23 with decisions about what is going on in24 our city.25 203 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921
My name is David4 Hammond. I'm the Executive Director of5 the South Street Headhouse District and6 was also an appointee to the original7 CDAG.8 I am here today to testify in9 favor of Bill No. 090170, the Central10 Delaware Riverfront Overlay District.11 As the Executive Director of12 the South Street Headhouse District, I am13 quite familiar with zoning overlays, as14 the District has had one since its15 inception in 1993. I feel strongly, as16 does our board of directors, that the17 zoning overlay has helped the District to18 control its own destiny.19 Without an overlay, there is no20 leverage available to encourage the21 desired development and/or discourage22 uses that would be detrimental to the23 district. Zoning overlays have been24 proven to be quite successful in urban25 204 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 planning, as evidenced by the number2 enacted, including Center City District,3 Manayunk Development Corporation,4 Rittenhouse Row, City Avenue, and5 numerous others throughout Philadelphia.6 In my six years as executive7 director, we have only had a few8 challenges to our overlay. In my9 experience, a very large majority of10 developers and prospective tenants prefer11 to know the rules going into a project12 prior to spending any money on project13 development that may be turned down by14 the Planning Commission or the Zoning15 Board of Adjustment.16 As a member of CDAG, I, along17 with numerous others, worked for over a18 year to shape the civic vision for the19 Central Delaware. Almost all of us were20 unpaid volunteers on our own time. We21 all spent many early mornings, late22 evenings, and the occasion weekend23 working to develop that vision based on24 the input of over 4,000 citizens of the25 205 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 Philadelphia.2 We are proud to have received3 Mayor Street's, Mayor Nutter's, and the4 Planning Commission's support for the5 civic vision and are anxiously awaiting6 the master plan for the seven-mile7 stretch of the river.8 But therein lies the problem.9 Until the master plan is completed in 1210 to 18 months, do we want to go back to11 the old way of developing the Delaware?12 If we do not have this zoning overlay in13 place, the efforts of all of those14 citizens of Philadelphia would be wasted15 if developers could pull permits to do16 projects under the current zoning.17 I too shop at the Wal-Mart and18 the Home Depot, as I'm a resident of19 Queen Village. And despite the fact that20 I see that they are often busy on a21 Saturday afternoon, I find it difficult22 to believe that the people would say that23 that's the best use of that parcel of24 land.25 206 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 And the people have already2 spoken, telling you what they wanted. It3 is imperative that the Council adopts4 this bill to protect the efforts of the5 people to shape their waterfront as they6 choose and not have a developer do it for7 them.8 The people are aware that most9 of us will not be around when this vision10 is realized, but you have to start11 somewhere, you have to start sometime.12 You cannot keep putting things off for13 the next generations.14 The Central Delaware is rare15 and the time is now. I ask your support16 for Bill No. 090170. And thank you for17 the opportunity to testify.18
Thank19 you very much. Thank you very much.20 Our next witnesses?21
Pete Hoskins.22 Todd Baylson, Tatiana Granados, Eric23 Cheung.24 (Witness comes forward.)25 207 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921
Thank you. Am I4 all alone?5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:6 Apparently you are.7
Well, I want to8 thank you very much for the opportunity,9 and I will paraphrase in the interest of10 time.11 I'm Pete Hoskins, and I'm here12 as President of the Board of the13 Philadelphia Parks Alliance. And on14 behalf of the Parks Alliance, I'm here to15 testify in support of an interim zoning16 overlay to the Central Delaware that will17 ensure that a continuous riverfront18 greenway and trail can be ultimately19 created.20 This much needed zoning will21 protect the civic vision that will enable22 the riverfront to reach its extraordinary23 economic, environmental, and cultural24 potential.25 208 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 In my full testimony, I do2 allude to the groundbreaking Trust for3 Public Land Study sponsored by the4 Lendfest Foundation that clearly5 documents very strong economic benefits6 from parks in many, many ways, health,7 environmental, and certainly real estate.8 And I would encourage Councilmembers to9 use that study as you look at this10 investment as well as other investments11 in our parks.12 I'll leave my summary behind,13 but I would like to say a special thanks14 to Councilman DiCicco and to Councilman15 Kenney for their insightful comments this16 morning. I think that, as Councilmembers17 representing this area, you really do18 understand the vision and are looking at19 this in a much longer perspective, and I20 give you great credit for doing that21 So thank you very much22
Thank23 you.24 Do we have anyone else to25 209 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 testify on this bill?2 Kindly approach the witness3 table.4 (Witnesses come forward.)5
I6 would ask you to try to be as brief as7 possible. Thank you.8 Please identify yourself for9 the record.10
Thank you. My11 name is Sarah Clarke Stewart and I'm here12 to speak on behalf of the Bicycle13 Coalition of Greater Philadelphia and the14 Schuylkill River Park Alliance, a15 nonprofit advocacy organization that16 advocates for public access and17 stewardship of the Schuylkill River Trail18 below the Art Museum dam.19 We support this bill. We urge20 that there are four areas where the bill21 would be greatly strengthened. I'll just22 talk about those for one minute.23 We strongly recommend that the24 ordinance specify a hundred-foot setback25 210 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 to provide sufficient room for riverfront2 greenway. If a hundred feet is not3 possible, 20 percent of the parcel is4 recommended.5 Secondly, we recommend that the6 right-of-way dedicated for pedestrian and7 bicycle traffic be specifically cited as8 being a minimum width of 14 feet.9 Thirdly, not all open streets10 are wide enough to accommodate a bicycle11 lane. So if the bill, is going to12 provide that legally open streets be used13 instead of a path, that a five-foot wide14 bike path be provided in addition to the15 legally open street16 And lastly, we recommend that17 reasonable intervals for perpendicular18 access be provided, preferably every 50019 feet, as recommended by the civic vision,20 but no longer than a half a mile.21 Thank you very much.22
Good afternoon,25 211 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 Madam Chairwoman. My name is Hal2 Schermer. I am also with Schuylkill3 River Park. 7 One thing which I think is8 important to remember briefly is we are9 taking about the public riverfront. So10 when we hear that there are only so many11 owners of the riverfront; no, there are12 not. That is a public riverfront; it13 belongs to the citizens of Philadelphia,14 the citizens of the State of15 Pennsylvania. 19 Several years ago, we were here20 talking about access to the Schuylkill21 River Park. We have the same situation22 where a small number of property23 interests are vehemently against public24 access. 8 The same situation applies here. 17 Where the bill speaks to the18 bulkhead lines, one of the concerns is19 that that's actually the wrong line. 25 213 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 One of the things to look at2 is, picture in your mind the sidewalk and3 the, quote, riverfront trail that you4 have along the Delaware, the sidewalk5 outside of Dockside. Then contrast that6 with the mental picture of the Schuylkill7 River Trail. 21 The draw for this property is22 to make it like Rittenhouse Square. It23 becomes an outdoor square. 13 Also to note that the language14 in the ordinance, I believe, talked about15 an economic hardship. "18 Finally, I just wanted to note19 there was a mention about the Venice20 Island overlay. The Venice Island21 overlay is a bit of a Jacob Marley22 showing you what not to do. The Venice23 Island overlay includes a requirement for24 a riverfront trail. The very first25 215 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 development after that put in a2 chained-link private parking lot on the3 first property that was to be the4 riverfront trail. 10 There were multiple projects before the11 Venice Island overlay, where the Planning12 Commission went through and did the13 measurements and figured out, This is the14 floor area ratio that we need to have a15 good project. 23 I wanted a quick follow-up. We24 have two visions of the Delaware. One is25 216 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 the vision with Northern Liberties, a2 vibrant community done on small,3 block-by-block bases. We have the4 (indiscernible) division of large, big5 parcels separated by wide swaths of6 river. We should follow what we know7 works, which is to take the Delaware8 River zoning and make it look like the9 Northern Liberties zoning. 11 Finally, for many years, City12 Council -- well, for many years,13 Philadelphia was controlled by an14 informal height ordinance that nobody15 built any taller than William Penn's16 statue. Only partially tongue-in-cheek,17 I would suggest that City Council look at18 a similar idea that when it comes to19 public rights to access the public river,20 the public should have the same amount of21 access that you have on the north side of22 City Hall, about a hundred feet. 8
Thank9 you very much.10 Are there any other witnesses11 to testify on this bill?12 (No response.)13 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:14 Seeing none, this will conclude our15 public hearing.16 We will now go into our public17 meeting, and the Chair recognizes18 Councilman Kenney for a motion on Bill19 No. 090128.20
Thank you,21 Madam President.22 I move that Bill No. 090128 be23 reported out of this committee favorably24 and a request made for a rules suspension25 218 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 to allow for first reading at our next2 Council session.3 (Motion duly seconded.)4
It5 has been moved and seconded that Bill No.6 090128 be reported out of committee with7 a favorable recommendation and, further,8 that the rules of Council be suspended so9 as to permit first reading at our next10 session of Council.11 All in favor will indicate by12 saying aye.13 Those opposed?14 The ayes have it, and the15 motion carries.16 The Chair recognizes Councilman17 Kenney regarding Bill No. 090348.18
Thank you,19 Madam President.20 I move to adopt the amendments21 to Bill No. 090348, as circulated.22 (Motion duly seconded.)23
It24 has been moved and seconded that the25 219 6/3/09 RULES - 090128, 169, 170, 348, 349, 3921 amendment, as circulated, be adopted.2 All in favor will say aye.3 Those opposed?4 The ayes have it, and the5 motion carries.6 And the Chair recognizes7 Councilman Kenney.8
Thank you,9 Madam President.10 I move that Bill No. 090348, as11 amended, be reported out of this12 committee with a favorable recommendation13 and a request made for a rules suspension14 to allow for first reading at our next15 Council session.16 (Motion duly seconded.)17